https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767733 The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4,06,816/- to the assessee's income under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, due to a significant discrepancy between the purchase price of a property and its valuation by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee to substantiate the transaction value. It also rejected the argument for the retrospective application of the Finance Act, 2020's amendment increasing permissible variance from 5% to 10%, as the amendment was explicitly effective from April 1, 2021, and the relevant assessment year was 2018-19. en-us Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767733 The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4,06,816/- to the assessee's income under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, due to a significant discrepancy between the purchase price of a property and its valuation by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee to substantiate the transaction value. It also rejected the argument for the retrospective application of the Finance Act, 2020's amendment increasing permissible variance from 5% to 10%, as the amendment was explicitly effective from April 1, 2021, and the relevant assessment year was 2018-19. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767733